PDA

View Full Version : ADSB thoughts


N941WR
04-08-2011, 09:17 AM
On Wednesday evening Rod Hightower, President of the EAA National, was in Charlotte and gave a presentation to EAA 309 and anyone else who wanted to drop in.

He said that in eight years everyone will be required to have a TSO'ed GPS and Mode S transponder with 'out' capability to comply with the ADSB requirement.

The current cost of compliance is around $15,000, he said. This is the cost of a GNS430 and 330 transponder, plus installation.

He went on to say that there is hope someone will develop a $4,500 unit so the changeover will be "affordable". Let's make that $5,000 with installation. So, the guy who bought is RV or worse yet, bought a $20K 152 is going to be required to pay 25% of the value of the aircraft just to keep flying. That is not a good deal.

After the meeting we were talking to Mr. Hightower at length about this issue and here is the real kicker about this requirement:

The ADSB 'out' will be required to transmit your point of origin, current position, and destination. All that is public record so anyone can track your comings and goings. While some might say that they can do that in Flightaware, that is true of you file a flight plane or use flight following, not if you are VFR. Personally, I donít think the public has a right to know when Iím not at home.

The other gotcha is the requirement for the point of origin and destination. Apparently the FAA didn't consider anyone might take off, fly around, and land at their home airport. Mr. Hightower said the FAA has agreed to allow people to make both points the same, so that is good. It sounds like the FAA thought all pilots treat their planes like the airlines; take off and fly direct to their destination. It frightens me that the FAA is that disconnected from how GA pilots operate and I have a hard time believing that last part.

However, he didnít have an answer for someone who takes off, goes to one airport, and then starts heading to airport #3 but diverts without plugging in the new destination into their GPS or simply flies around without a destination programmed into their GPS and lands at a bunch of different airports. Now you are flying around without the FAA (and TSA?) knowing what your intentions are and they aren't going to like that so much.

No one seems to have an answer for that last one, at least not that I could find.

Mr. Hightower did state that this requirement has been passed and is coming. The EAA and AOPA are working on extending the implementation date but that it is coming.

I did some research on ADSB and couldnít find anything to disprove what I have written above. If any of you have such information, please post it.

I know this forum has strict rules about all things political but maybe it is time we start a grass roots letter writing campaign to our federal representatives.

(Please do not post any anti-FAA or government rants. This is intended to be an informative discussion.)

dynonsupport
04-08-2011, 09:45 AM
Bill,
Dynon's Mode-S transponder that integrates with SkyView is fully ADS-B compliant, so we know a few things about ADS-B.

First, the transponder is $2,200, which is the same price as non-ADS-B transponders from other companies. You can buy the Trig version of our transponder for $2,800 if you don't have a SkyView. So for someone just building a plane, this doesn't even cost them anything.

It is true that you need a 145C TSO'd GPS to be legal in 2020, and today that means a 430W (or the new replacement). ACS has a 430W for $8,300. You can actually use a 400W, which GCA has for $6,200. This of course also makes you fully legal to fly GPS approaches.

So today, if you sell your old transponder for $1K, you can be fully compliant for $7,400. Not free, but not quite $15K. Transponders have been $2K for years so I don't know that the prices will go down, but I think we all hope somebody will come up with a $2K GPS that is position only (not a full navigator like a 430). You can buy the transponder today and wait until Dec 31, 2019 to buy the cheapest GPS that exists on that day.

My other comment is that I know what you have to send to an ADS-B device, and it only includes your current position. There is no provision in the ADS-B spec to publish your origin or destination. It literally cannot transmit it.

ADS-B is truly not meant as more than a system of radar that covers the whole country with GPS levels of accuracy. It does transit who you are all the time, via a unique ID to your plane, so it does go a bit beyond the old system of only knowing who you are once you put in a non-VFR squawk. But it does not have any idea of a flight plan beyond what we have today. Commercial ops sometimes type in their flight number instead of their tail number to a Mode-S transponder which makes them easier to manage across multiple ATC sectors, but small GA planes never need to do this.

Finally, there is no requirement that I am aware of that you transmit ADS-B when you are not in a place where a transponder is required today. You need it near big airports and above 18K feet, but if all you do is VFR out in rural areas, you don't need ADS-B more than you need a transponder, which is to say not at all. Again, think of ADS-B as an advanced transponder, not a whole new kind of surveillance.

There is a lot to not like about ADS-B as a pilot, but there is also a lot of misinformation out there. Also, there is a ton to love about ADS-B such as the amazing traffic and weather detail it gives you.

The above are the facts as I know them based on all the research I have done for Dynon as we have worked with becoming ADS-B compliant in our products.

--Ian Jordan
Dynon Avionics

N941WR
04-08-2011, 09:49 AM
Ian / Dynon Support:

Thank you for the clarification!

rocketbob
04-08-2011, 09:59 AM
Really I think all that is necessary is for someone to come up with a box that is nothing more than a GPS with RAIM capability that takes whatever waypoint is in set your non-TSOed gps and output the position into your mode-S transponder so its not identified as "low quality" in the ADS-B system. Or better yet just build this functionality right into the transponder.

ccsmith51
04-08-2011, 10:05 AM
Thanks Ian and Dynon for the info.

I was at the EAA Grassroots presentation in Jacksonville, and Rod Hightower told us the same thing about implementation timing; origin, current position, and destination reporting; EAA and AOPA would do all they could to delay, but it was coming; all aircraft would be required to have ADS-B.

I'm wondering how the President - CEO of EAA could be so wrong about something as important as ADS-B?

I'm not sure how accurate Wikipedia is, but they claim that aircraft operating in Class A, B and C airspace will need ADS-B, as well as Class E above 10,000' MSL. There is no mention of whether Class D airspace will require it.

Kyle Boatright
04-08-2011, 10:15 AM
Isn't 10,000 ft the broad requirement for a transponder?

If that is the case, even those of you in the hinterlands will need ADS-B to fly your RV's above 10,000 ft.

That is a huge airspace grab if you don't have $5-10k to throw at equipment which is of limited benefit to the user.

Rainier Lamers
04-08-2011, 10:36 AM
As I might have let slip, we are busy designing a transponder at this point in time and I have the very latest documents in my hand (DO-181D, DO-260B, etc).
Nowhere is there a transponder requirement to store and forward origin or destination using BDS or ADS-B squitter and I concure with Dynon on the issue.
The only way this can be done is through one of the higher level pass-through protocols to a flight management system. In this case the transponder is "transparent" and used as a conduit to pass data to and from the ground station to a seperate system connected to the transponder.
Not all mode-S transponders support these protocols, support only a subset, or support only BDS (and then usualy only very few of them).
The transponder level (check label on your transponder) specifies what the transponder supports but there is a lot of messups on the popular level 2 due to usualy only partial implementation so it may mean even if you have a level 2, you will need that upgraded or replaced if it ever gets that far.

I understand it is early days on this and likely things will turn out different or make provisions for the real World.

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics

Rainier Lamers
04-08-2011, 10:40 AM
Aircraft Spruce is selling the Trig complete for $2049 including the panel mount control head. So it's not that bad...

Rainier

TCONROY
04-08-2011, 10:50 AM
We at Advanced Flight Systems have integrated a remote ADS-B box made by NavWorx. It is ADS-B In/Out (on BOTH 978 Mhz and 1090 Mhz)and will incorporate a certified GPS (later this year) to meet the requirements of the TSO. All of that for $2495!

Two of the main reasons we decided to utilize the NavWorx ADS600-B product were because of its price and that it utilizes both frequencies which most our competitors don't do. The ADS-B network will fill up fast with the mandate coming in 2020 and those using only 1090ES will have issues in the long run. This is why the FCC allocated the 978Mhz UAT frequency as a secondary means of communicating ADS-B information.

ADS-B used to be very expensive when only one manufacturer was making a remote box, but now there are several options out there that are very affordable and offer excellent results. We have the ADS600-B in our company RV-10 and it has performed very well! Seeing up to 32 targets of traffic and the weather without a monthly subscription can't be beat.

TCONROY
04-08-2011, 10:52 AM
My understanding is that NavWorx is working with the FAA to allow the ADS600-B to be certified as a Mode-S transponder as well because it IS a mode-s transponder internally.

Bavafa
04-08-2011, 10:58 AM
All great and valuable information.

Just wondering, was there any discussion regarding the ADS-B and its requirement to be TSO'd or not. Last I heard, there was still a debate about the ADS-B equipment itself and if it has to be TSO'd.

Radomir
04-08-2011, 11:07 AM
NavWorx is UAT only (978Mhz).. it's not an ES transponder..

dynonsupport
04-08-2011, 11:07 AM
Aircraft Spruce is selling the Trig complete for $2049 including the panel mount control head. So it's not that bad...


For those considering ADS-B compliance via a Mode-S transponder, the current FAA regs require a Class 1 transponder (higher power) to be considered ADS-B compliant. This is why I quoted our $2,200 transponder over our $1,800 transponder. If a customer installs a Class 2 Mode-S, they may find themselves non-complaint when 2020 comes.

You need to buy the TT22 from Trig, not the TT21 if you want to be sure of long term compliance.

Ron Lee
04-08-2011, 11:11 AM
The year 2020 ADS-B mandate is for ADS-B Out (position reports). The In stuff (weather and other traffic) is not mandated.

The mandate coverage is for current Mode C transponder areas which includes above 10,000' MSL with some mountainous area modification.

"It is coming" is not acceptable and I am still doing what I can to fight it. Should be going Congressional at some point since AOPA threw us under the bus.

SteinAir
04-08-2011, 12:11 PM
One of the problems with this entire excercise of debate is that nobody has a crystal ball that is clear enough to actually know how this all shakes out. The elephant in the room is the 121 carriers, and if all of them are also required to have ADSB, that could potentially do a lot of things to bandwidth (there is a limited 1090ES capacity in badwidth that is already being used by ATCRBS/TCAS, etc..) which could materially impact the GA technical side of things. On top of that, us in GA have almost zero impact on the formation of things politically, while IATA can rule the roost in DC. Until that shakes out a little further, I think it's dubious for anyone to claim they have the end game for ADSB entirely figured out to the 100th percentile. If so, I'll take that bet! :)

Perhaps it'll all take shape as assumed, but then again given the way government works, what is "compliant" today may not necessarily mean compliance tomorrow. I'm not really debating any particular side except to say that our view from inside the box of GA and how this is going does not take into consideration a whole additional world of politics/lobbying and sector of aviation that has much more influence on the way things go compared to us in GA. Add to that funding/budgets, etc.. and the end result may be a moving target at this point.

Remember not too long ago when we were all going to be required to have 406Mhz ELT's by the end of that year!?? ;)

My 2 cents as usual!

Cheers,
Stein

Mike S
04-08-2011, 12:21 PM
Ian, Trevor, Rainer-------

Are the units you are both talking about going to be stand alone, all-in-one, remote units that can be mounted someplace other than the panel??

If that is the case, life would be a lot easier for those of us with already completed aircraft.

Thanks for your input so far, and anticipated responses.

Brantel
04-08-2011, 12:27 PM
I for one am thankfull for all the Experimental EFIS makers that are trying to sort this all out and bring products to the experimental market that are affordable for the rest of us normal people.

Thanks for not just sitting back and forcing us to rely on the big boys and their high $$$ prices!

RVbySDI
04-08-2011, 12:43 PM
I talked with Carlos from GRT and NavWorx at SNF about this ADS-B stuff. The GRT HX units can accept the NavWorx box that can be remotely mounted anywhere in the plane and wired to the HX units via serial ports.

At this point in my exploration it looks like the NavWorx might be a good way to go. It is sure a lot cheaper than trying to figure out how to put a 430, or equivalent unit, in my panel. I have pretty much all the functionality needed in the EFIS to fly IFR except an IFR approved navigation GPS and nav radio. If I can get the certified GPS in the NavWorx that will give me full IFR functionality from my GRT HX EFIS. I could then upgrade to an SL-30 Nav radio and have full IFR capabilities.

The problem I face currently is that the FAA has not completed installation of ADS-B sites in the midwest where 90% of my flying takes place. If I install the equipment now it will have limited functionality until ADS-B makes its way beyond the two LEFT COASTS. The NavWorx guy thought that by the end of this year they should have sites up in the midwest. I will take a closer look at everything again at Oshkosh.

dynonsupport
04-08-2011, 12:48 PM
The transponder that Dynon sells to go with SkyView is a remote transponder with no panel presence, and is controlled by SkyView's current user interface. This is not a future product, it is one we sell today, and is fully TSO'd.

We expect we can do that with any other ADS-B devices that we interface with in the future as well, such as an ADS-B UAT.

Bavafa
04-08-2011, 12:58 PM
Don't mean to hijack this thread, just wonder if others are aware of this option.

If you have a GTX330, then upgrading to a extended squitter maybe a way to go for the ADS-B out which at $1200 might be a more affordable then some other solution we have heard. Of course the IN portion still needs to be addressed.

https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?pID=201&ra=true

dynonsupport
04-08-2011, 01:46 PM
You still need a certified 430W on board with your 330 to make it legal for ADS-B out (in 2020).

If you already have a 430W on board and a 330, then $1,200 is your cheapest option. If you are buying new stuff, the 330 is an expensive way to go given other options out there.

ADS-B in is never mandated, that's up to you if you want the services that come with it, but the nice thing about ADS-B in is that it's the easiest portion and has no regulatory issues. There are already ADS-B in devices out there for less than $1K.

Dave Cole
04-08-2011, 02:54 PM
It is true that you need a 145C TSO'd GPS to be legal in 2020, and today that means a 430W (or the new replacement). ACS has a 430W for $8,300. You can actually use a 400W, which GCA has for $6,200. This of course also makes you fully legal to fly GPS approaches.


If a 145c TSO GPS will be reqruied, I have a problem with that.

I have been building my -7 for seven years now, and made the decision a few years ago to purchase and install a 129a TSO'd GPS (a GNC 300XL) and a Mode C transponder (GTX-327). The GPS/COM is approved for IFR enroute, terminal, and approach guidance. By what reasoning would this perfectly legal IFR approved TSO's GPS not be an acceptable source for ADS-B position information? I can't believe that the absence of WASS position accuracy is significant enough to have an impact on separation distances.

For me, this issue isn't just about the cost of new eqiuipment. It's also about the pain of ripping out my avionics stack, completley rewiring it, and not only paying more for what I put back in it than for what I take out, but also having no market for the perfectly legal IFR GPS and Transponder that I was forced to remove.

Yes. I will have a big problem with that.

Brantel
04-08-2011, 03:05 PM
As it sits today that the way it is...stinks hu???

It is my understanding that they are even going to require a certain sentence in the GPS data for it to be seen as a legal source and if that is not there, it won't work.....the non legal ones won't have this sentence in order to prevent you from using them as the position source.

BillC
04-08-2011, 03:10 PM
First, This is a great discussion and Thanks to all of the manufacturers on here helping us to understand this very complex topic.

I just finished leafing through the FAA final rule making on 14 CFR Part 19 ADB-S and I don't see anything there requiring departure and destination information. If I didn't miss something, I can see a potential opportunity for someone to develop and manufacture a simple module using off an shelf GPS receiver module to output the required data to any mode S transponder. There are GPS modules out there with almost everything already there including RAIM. I don't see the need for a full blown navigation GPS, as this is not being used to fly an approach. This could be treated just like our current remote altitude encoders are.
I don't have a price for these modules but I would suspect that in volume they are probably <$100 each. So a complete unit could probably be sold for something between $500 and $1000. Take that unit and a Trig or similar mode-S transponder and you could have a compliant ADB-S out system for something under $3500?

rzbill
04-08-2011, 03:27 PM
If I can get the certified GPS in the NavWorx that will give me full IFR functionality from my GRT HX EFIS.

Better check on this in more detail. When I was doing my avionics wiring diagrams last year, it was evident that the NavWorks hardware did not have a GPS data stream output via RS-232. Sure, it has a WAAS GPS, but the data is only going to the antenna and out to ATC.

I talked to them about this a year or so ago and said that having an RS-232 output of GPS data would be a great way to have a backup input to an EXP EFIS such as the GRT H1s.

If they have executed the change (I postponed Navworks purchase), please post it. I might go ahead and buy.

dynonsupport
04-08-2011, 03:40 PM
The problem is that you can't just make an off the shelf GPS certified. To certify a device you have to have source code for EVERY line of code that is in the device, including code that the factory might put in a microcontroller. You'll never get that for a $100 COTS GPS device.

Also, even without the above issue, a GPS is so software based that I don't think you could prove it meets the requirements of the TSO without actually having the source.

Finally, it is our opinion that just because your EFIS has a data stream going to it from a TSO'd GPS position does not make it a legal navigation source. The ways that it interprets and displays databases needs to be certified as well, so if you want a legal IFR solution, none of the experimental EFIS units will do it for you, no matter what the position source is.

Brantel
04-08-2011, 03:51 PM
You also would not be able to meet the cert standards with a remote embedded and certified GPS position source that only talked RS232 NMEA data to your EFIS.

There is no provisions in the NMEA data stream to do things like automatically scale the CDI resolution so that one thing right there is a deal breaker....

rzbill
04-08-2011, 03:51 PM
Finally, it is our opinion that just because your EFIS has a data stream going to it from a TSO'd GPS position does not make it a legal navigation source.

Good clarification. My intent was to use it as an inexpensive baconsaver backup, not as primary. I understand the non-cert database factor for one. Primary nav planned is full on 430W.

Ron Lee
04-08-2011, 03:58 PM
Dave Cole, it has been a while since I read the ADS-B Out NPRM or final document but my UNOFFICIAL impression/recollection is that the specs were written to require the use of WAAS. The fact that WAAS is a FAA system may just be coincidental.

I do not know how all this will play out but come 2018 or later a lot of people will be in a rude/costly awakening.

Of course people can avoid any ADS-B Out cost by staying out of airspace that requires it. Should that happen, those with ADS-B In will not see those aircraft and will have to maintain as high a see and avoid attitude as if they had no collision avoidance system. Or midairs may increase. Keep in mind the law of unintended consequences.

Greg Arehart
04-08-2011, 04:25 PM
Just an off-the-wall question. Will this mandate also apply to older airplanes, particularly those with no electrical system?

greg

Ron Lee
04-08-2011, 04:32 PM
Greg, probably not but you could verify by reading the final document. I believe that such aircraft also are not required to have transponders. That appears to be right. Look in the document under the following paragraph:

C. Operational Procedures
1. Applicability

In part

"......There may be instances where a pilot of an aircraft without an electrical system (such as a glider) may
want to operate in airspace where ADS–B Out performance standards would be required under this proposal. The procedures for requesting authorization to enter the airspace where ADS–B is required would be the same procedures used today for aircraft not equipped with a transponder to enter certain airspace. In these cases, an operator may request an ATC authorization to operate in the airspace and the FAA addresses those requests on a case-by-case basis."

Bob Axsom
04-08-2011, 05:39 PM
On Wednesday evening Rod Hightower, President of the EAA National, was in Charlotte and gave a presentation to EAA 309 and anyone else who wanted to drop in.

He said that in eight years everyone will be required to have a TSO'ed GPS and Mode S transponder with 'out' capability to comply with the ADSB requirement.

The current cost of compliance is around $15,000, he said. This is the cost of a GNS430 and 330 transponder, plus installation.



OK no GOV/FAA rant how about one against the EAA leader?

Bob Axsom

Ron Lee
04-08-2011, 05:45 PM
He said that in eight years everyone will be required to have a TSO'ed GPS and Mode S transponder with 'out' capability to comply with the ADSB requirement.

I believe this is WRONG. You will only need the worthless to me ADS-B Out capability if you fly in airspace that requires it (essentially Mode C transponder airspace).

Full disclosure: I am a staunch opponent of this requirement.

N941WR
04-08-2011, 07:24 PM
OK no GOV/FAA rant how about one against the EAA leader?

Bob Axsom

My question is, how many of the people serving on the EAA Board have ever built an airplane? Not restored, not had restored, not purchased an EAB but actually built one and performed the test flying.

vlittle
04-08-2011, 08:11 PM
At the risk of being labelled a shzt disturber:

It's my opinion that full ADS-B will NOT be rolled out. Once the TSA realizes that the ADS-B out signals can be easily spoofed and GPS can be easily jammed (by readily available massed produced Chinese jamming devices available today), they will step in.

They will require ground based-radar surveillance (primary and ssr) to be provisioned in all metropolitan areas and security sensitive areas. They will never trust what an aircraft sends to a ground station.

The pilot-friendly features of traffic and weather information will be achieved by passive means (with some modifciations, transponders can ping their mode C or mode S information so that nearby aircraft can detect them using the traffic monitors we use today). Weather can easily be provided by other means.

Ask yourself the question: will you trust the traffic information provided by ADS-B, particularly in the early years? Aside from the security issues mentioned above, what about the C-150 straying into Mode-S airspace and not showing up on the TIS-B (traffic) display. What about the truck driver 3000 feet below that has turned on his GPS jamming device so his boss can't track him?

Once you have to invest in ground-based radar surveillance systems for security reasons, there is not much incentive to roll out ADS-B because the savings are not there.

I'm not sayin, I'm just sayin...

Ron Lee
04-08-2011, 08:50 PM
Vern, Vern, Vern. Let's not talk facts here. Most people who have thought about this issue know that you are right. ADS-B Out is about saving FAA money (getting rid of radars). At our (GA and airline passengers) expense.

Rainier Lamers
04-09-2011, 01:48 AM
It is both panel mount AND fully remote controllable. It is a single unit transponder (i.e. not seperate display and transponder but combined).

This way it can be used any way you like, either as remote unit or panel mount or both.

Same as our VHF products.

Rainier

Ian, Trevor, Rainer-------

Are the units you are both talking about going to be stand alone, all-in-one, remote units that can be mounted someplace other than the panel??

If that is the case, life would be a lot easier for those of us with already completed aircraft.

Thanks for your input so far, and anticipated responses.

Ron Lee
04-09-2011, 08:12 AM
A nagging issue not discussed but I vaguely recall that Mode-C transponders will still be required. I do not know if I can provide proof of that at this time so consider that statement suspect until proven correct.

dynonsupport
04-09-2011, 08:41 AM
Ron,
The ADS-B out mandate requires that you still have a transponder, Mode-C or better.

If you use a Mode-S transponder to achieve ADS-B out compliance, you are done, since it does both in one.

If you use a UAT (978MHz) to achieve ADS-B compliance, you still need a transponder, since a UAT is not a transponder.

Dave Cole
04-09-2011, 10:22 AM
Dave Cole, it has been a while since I read the ADS-B Out NPRM or final document but my UNOFFICIAL impression/recollection is that the specs were written to require the use of WAAS.

Good enough. But couldn't this need be met with an ADS-B transceiver equipped with an embedded TSO'd WASS GPS? Why would it require the use of a full-featured WASS GPS/NAV/COM like the 430W?

Ron Lee
04-09-2011, 11:09 AM
Good enough. But couldn't this need be met with an ADS-B transceiver equipped with an embedded TSO'd WASS GPS? Why would it require the use of a full-featured WASS GPS/NAV/COM like the 430W?

You would think so but someone who develops avionics needs to address it.

Perhaps using a TSO'd/conforming nav source makes it easier/cheaper to do the ADS-B Out avionics. Just a guess on my part.

hpmicrowave
04-09-2011, 11:31 AM
From all my work with NAVWORZ I have not read in their documentation or been told by Bill Moffitt that their equipment operates as a standard IFF or Mode-S IFF or has any Recv function on any IFF Freq other that the ADSB-UAT Freq at 978MHz. Their unit integrates with a standard XPDR to make sure their is no traffic duplication or confusion between the two units as required by the FAA, but that is it as far as I know. NavWORX info at

"http://navworx.com/press_release_detail.asp?id=91"

I think what will really happen is that we will be required to install a Mode-S Transponder with extended Squitter (ADSB-Out only/=No Mode-S traffic/TIS/TAS) like in Europe today by 2020, and the ADSB-UAT that NAVWORX makes will also be required for A/C operations in controlled airspace below 10K (or 18K?). IFF Mode-S Extended Squitter is also called ADSB (yes its confusing), but for general aviiation a basic unit does nothing more than what a transponder does today, lets ATC see you and Airliners avoid you. Hopefully the Mode-S Extended Squitter mandate will not require dual IFF antennas (one-on top of aircraft for Airliner-TAS use, and one on the bottom for FAA Gnd-use). A full IFF-Mode-S (2-Way Data and is also called ADSB) will also recieve uplinked traffic (TIS) but only from certain ATC terminal radars and and providing this service is not the FAA's long term solution). When FAA updates their Gnd SSR (Surface Search Radars) next time this capability will likely be dome away with. I know our local ASR radars here in the Florida Panhandle were relpaced last year and the Mode-S TIS uplink went away. We only have Radio Traffic advisory but do have ADSB-UAT but the Traffic uplink portion has not been activated yet. ADSB-UAT (from NAVWORX) will give you Weather and traffic, either uplinked over the 978MHz datalink from ATC (when Next Gen is fully working), or directly from other ADSB-UAT equipped aircraft.

AV Week has a good article going over all the FAA confusion on this.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=bca&id=news/nextgen0710p01.xml&headline=null&next=50

Radomir
04-09-2011, 11:31 AM
Of course it can be done.. and will be done soon (this summer?).. Freeflight is wrapping up a UAT and an approved GPS for ADS-B.. well, cost is about 7k or so (for both boxes together). THe GPS is a headless box, so won't be used for approaches etc.. Don't think this is best way to go, but it's an option out there..